Keep it short: a three-minute read

Dr Brian Keegan explains why less is often more when it comes to the written word, despite the innate tendency to elaborate rather than edit.

The first draft standard from the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) was published last month. Dealing with climate, it runs to a mere 39 pages. But then you have to add on the appendices, which run to well over 500 pages. Even though it is still in draft, that’s a lot of material for people to get their heads around. There will be changes before it is finalised, and I wouldn’t bet that those changes will make it shorter. James Joyce rarely cut sentences when he edited his own work; he just added more words. Many of us subscribe to the Joycean approach.

The business and regulatory environment has undoubtedly become more complex. That has a bearing on the volume of information we need to process, but it is not the only reason. Annual reports are growing in length; witness the growth in the size of the published accounts the Leinster Society considers and awards each year. Senior figures in the profession are now predicting the emergence of a more narrative form of assurance on corporate results. More reporting reflects business complexity and stakeholder expectations, of which the new ISSB draft standard is a paradigm example.

Much of what we write shows a desire to be seen to have written rather than showing that we want to be read. We may literally be the authors of our own misfortune. Copy and paste functions aid and abet the blossoming of word counts. In this age of email and social media, it is trivial to point out that it is easier to send than to receive; it is certainly quicker.

By tolerating this growth, we all do ourselves a disservice. One distinguished senior member and non-executive director put it succinctly to me earlier in the year, as he glumly surveyed yet another multi-volume set of board materials. The bigger the pile of papers, the more it suggested to him that the board didn’t trust management, that management didn’t trust the board, and that everyone assumed that everyone else had too much time on their hands. Even if none of that was true, it would be hard to disprove given the evidence.

The tide may be turning, at least in some quarters. Many websites and journals now advertise the length of time it will take to read an article. This tactic is not without its risks either, as it insults fast readers and panics slow ones. Yet, we communicate best when the reader is minded to hear what we have to say. An assurance that the communication won’t take up too much of their time is a good way of getting an audience onside.

The French philosopher, Blaise Pascal, is credited with first making the excuse for something he wrote being too long – because he had no time to make it shorter. Time cutting the verbiage is time well spent; the reader is much more likely to hear the message, but it’s not easy. We need to stop hiding behind executive summaries and elevator pitches and instead manage better what we write in the first place.
I propose to lead by example. This column is supposed to be 600 words long, but it will be a little shorter this month. I hope the editor is okay with that. I hope you are too.

Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy and Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland.